If you posit theories and opinions without quantifying them, it is no different than saying, it just is.

All I have asked for is evidence to back up opinions other than results. Results can be because of a myriad of reasons. Saying that the results were because of a coach not adapting to something that fans seem to be sure was a problem is illogical unless you think Tortorella is a blathering idiot.

We know he isn't that, at least as far as coaching a hockey team. He may be an idiot in other ways and a jerk behavior-wise, but he knows the intricacies of coaching a hockey team far better than any of us that post here, despite what some seem to believe.

You realize that any evidence I give you will not be quantifiable, right? For example, the Rangers struggled to break up forechecks and exit the zone against the Senators, Capitals and Devils last year. That was due to our forwards collapsing too low and not being able to provide puck support higher up along the walls. We saw the same thing happening against the Capitals and Bruins this year. Sure, you can quantify it if someone had clocked the amount of zone time spent trying to break forechecks and failing because of that specific reason. But we haven't done that, so it's a qualitative assessment based on watching the action on the ice. This was a problem last year. It was a problem this year. No sign of adaptation from the team. Either that means a.) the coach never gave the team an adjustment to help with the issue or b.) the coach did give the team the adjustment and they didn't bother executing it. Either one is a problem.

Another example would be the zone entry on the powerplay (nevermind the setup of the powerplay itself). Entering the zone on the powerplay shouldn't be a problem. Park two guys on either end of the opposing blueline. Have one player attack the blueline with speed, on whichever side of the ice feels best. Back the D up, enter the zone, pass the puck off to one of the two guys following along the boards. This isn't rocket science and it's how most of the good powerplays in the league gain zone entry. Setup follows from there. The Rangers barely ever were able to execute that. When they tried to set up that zone entry, instead the puck carrier would dump it in. The two guys at the blueline would be standing relatively still and would be unable to retrieve the puck. Or the puck carrier would attack the line with speed, but would have no support and would end up turning the puck over. This was an issue last year. It was an issue this year. Either that means a.) the coach never gave the team an adjustment to help with the issue or b.) the coach did give the team the adjustment and they didn't bother executing it. Either one is a problem.

These are qualitative assessments of the team's play supported by logical deduction on how it reflects on the coach. These are system issues that have little to do with the talent on the team. Stop looking for quantifiables. Watch the game. Use reason.

So, how are we all feeling about the abortive coaching search? Are we happy that Sather clearly had his guy and all Vigneault really had to do was not screw up the interview? Do we trust Glen that much? Are we a little miffed that there wasn't a more thorough search? Or would a more thorough search have led to missing out on the best guy available? Would it really have made that big of a difference?

I'm kinda on the fence on a lot of those questions. I don't trust Sather that much, although his last two coaching hires have been good. On one hand, I wish there was a more thorough search. On the other hand, I wouldn't have been unhappy with any of the choices except for Messier. A thorough search would've been nice, but if the GM had his guy, how could you begrudge him for not bothering?

So, how are we all feeling about the abortive coaching search? Are we happy that Sather clearly had his guy and all Vigneault really had to do was not screw up the interview? Do we trust Glen that much? Are we a little miffed that there wasn't a more thorough search? Or would a more thorough search have led to missing out on the best guy available? Would it really have made that big of a difference?

I'm kinda on the fence on a lot of those questions. I don't trust Sather that much, although his last two coaching hires have been good. On one hand, I wish there was a more thorough search. On the other hand, I wouldn't have been unhappy with any of the choices except for Messier. A thorough search would've been nice, but if the GM had his guy, how could you begrudge him for not bothering?

Apparently, AV greatly impressed Slats AND Dolan in his interviews with them, so if he can leave that big of an impact on those two, I'm glad they snatched him up when they had the chance. I think Dallas offering him the job really forced Sather's hand, here, and I think he made the right move.

Apparently, AV greatly impressed Slats AND Dolan in his interviews with them, so if he can leave that big of an impact on those two, I'm glad they snatched him up when they had the chance. I think Dallas offering him the job really forced Sather's hand, here, and I think he made the right move.

I think the negotiations went very much in AV's way judging from their jokes during the podium question period. It came down to more than just the money, I believe.

I think he was the best available option. Team needed a change, and AV might be a breath of fresh air for the boys.

Sums it up good.

Plus ill add to that - looking at it now, this was a good time to bring a new coach in. After a half season, things are going to start fresh for all 30 teams, with the new alignment, so there will be a bit of an adjustment period for any team.

Don't discount the fact that AV knows Detroit and Columbus better then a majority of the coaches in the East, and he understands the rigors of travel. That will count for something.

I love all the rationalizing that's happening. Unless AV is really really charismatic or people changed their minds over night, there is no way that the thought and verdict on AV was 15-0-4. If AV is second to Eakins, then Eakins would have been Jesus in NYC.

I agree, just think that Torts personality in Vancouver is going to be a much more interesting situation than AV here. Actually though I'm not sure how much I'm going to like hearing the Torts supporters/bashers shove their "I was right" crap down our throats whenever one of the teams struggles or does well lol.

THIS is the #1 worst part of the coaching change for me. GDT's/PGT's are gonna get more unbearable than they ever were this year. The "Fire Torts!" crowd is gonna turn into the "Should've never fired Torts!" crowd. Team's gonna go on a hot streak and we'll get a billion posts about how Torts was ruining the team and Kreider. It's inevitable.

I still feel this was the best option. Sather decided to fire Torts so we needed a new coach. With the available coaches, I think AV is the best coach we could wish for.

Tippett is not available, Eakins signed with Edmonton because he wanted a young team to start his NHL coaching career so AV is the right decision.

The guy is responsible for winning 2 President's Trophies. I know, it's not a Stanley Cup, but he got to the SC finals in 2011 as well. This guy knows what it takes and seems like a guy with a lot of hockey IQ.

NEW YORK – It was a combination of things that saw Alain Vigneault named 35th head coach in Rangers franchise history during a glitzy press conference at Radio City Music Hall Friday morning.

His offensive style, his ability to adapt his style, and his seemingly more player-friendly approach are all complete opposites to what the Rangers had with former coach John Tortorella, whom team President/GM Glen Sather called “beyond stubborn” regarding his system and style of play.

“You have to put a system in place that maximizes the talent you have,” Vigneault said. “Originally when I got to Vancouver, we were more of a defensive-oriented team because our skill level wasn’t as high, our players hadn’t developed into the players they’ve become now. I think as we improved our roster and acquired more skill, we went to a more offensive system. In talking with people around [Rangers] management, our skill base is really solid, so [I’m] really looking forward to this opportunity.”